Supreme Court rejects challenge to abortion pill mifepristone
Supreme Court rejects challenge to abortion pill mifepristone
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a lawsuit challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s approach to regulating the abortion pill mifepristone with a ruling that will continue to allow the pills to be mailed to patients without an in-person doctor’s visit.
You're viewing a single thread.
-
Here's what this means:
If you favor access to reproductive healthcare, you NEED TO VOTE IN NOVEMBER.
The GOP will absolutely vote to restrict access to all reproductive healthcare now that SCOTUS has refused to do so.
-
They just weakened the NLRB in another opinion and when they destroy the Chevron deference principle this year, the NLRB (and a lot of other regulatory agencies like the FDA, EPA, etc) is going to be neutered.
SCOTUS is potentially on the ballot in November. Hope you all vote with reproductive access and labor rights in mind.
-
Anyone care to ELI5 nlrb and chevron deference?
-
The National Labor Relations Board is the federal agency that is responsible for regulating labor and workers' rights. 15-20 times a year, they use a court injunction to force a company to rehire employees that were fired due to attempted unionization (usually hidden under a BS other reason). The court made it much harder for those injunctions to be granted, meaning unionization efforts are going to be chilled.
The Chevron deference principle refers to a principle stemming from a prior case that effectively defers to federal agencies over courts when there are questions on implicit powers of those agencies. Weakening or destroying this effectively means any power for a federal agency must be explicitly granted in the text of a law, which republicans will never, ever do or allow. This is going to severely undercut the powers of every federal agency we have in varying degrees. Another conservative wet dream.
-
Thanks! And it sounds like we’re going to be screwed once these are changed.
-
I'm really, really worried about it. The FDA is going to lose powers it uses to ensure our food and medicine isn't killing us. The EPA is going to effectively be an advisory agency after this. The FTC looked like it might be back in business this admin, and it's going to be neutered. I'm not even explicitly opposed to this if our legislative branch wasn't inept and/or captured, but... we all know it is and it's not getting better soon.
Hopefully they kill the FDA and all drink raw milk to death, idk.
-
My republican friends can eat bat at the meat market on the corner, I’m gonna stick with the FDA certified grocery store…
-
You think you'll have the option?
-
Yes
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chevron deference <------- Non-ELI5
Not a law-talker type here, but essentially, when the legislature creates an agency like the FDA, it delegates powers to them to make rulings on certain matters but does not specifically legislate every decision that agency has to make. It says that the FDA can make rulings about drug safety, but it doesn't say explicitly what drugs the FDA can make decisions about.
In this particular case, the FDA has said that a drug, mifepristone, is safe and doctors can prescribe it to patients. The law suit claimed that the FDA overstepped it's authority because the legislature never explicitly gave the FDA the power to do that. This is a flawed argument because SCOTUS already decided, in the linked case above, that it was inappropriate for the court to substitute its own interpretation of a rule on an issue like this where the legislature gave an agency an implicit power to make such a decision as long as the agency's decision is reasonable.
That is the Chevron Deference. It means that the courts should defer to agency rulings when those rulings are reasonable even if the power to make the ruling is only implicitly granted to the agency.
I may not be dead on the mark here, but I think I'm fairly close. If not, I'm sure some real law-talker type will be along to correct me.
-
Not a lawyer either, to be clear. I think your general description holds, but the example wouldn't. Individual drugs would still fall under the explicit granted ability to regulate "drugs" as a whole. I think the injunction power referenced in today's NLRB ruling might be a good example actually, even if they didn't explicitly reject it via this mechanism today.
-
-
-
-
Yep. It’s insane how quickly we’re spiraling into a fucking christian theocracy… anything less than voting for Biden in November is tacit support for Trump and the GOP and I don’t care whether or not people on Lemmy like hearing that fact. We have one chance to save our democracy. Vote like your life depends on it.
-
I'm just wondering what the supposed benefit of a protest vote even is and how it stacks up against what we lost as a result of 2016? On one hand there's Dobbs, weakening of every federal agency, millions dead from a fumbled pandemic response. On the other, there's... Wait, what is there?
-
As much as I hate how things are developing, no. We're not spiraling into a theocracy. Some States, for sure. But at the Federal, nah.
Having said that, I agree with you. The only way to continue ensuring the encroaching of these fucks is by voting.
Edit: I'm not denying that there is a problem. I'm just saying that it's not as hopeless as it sounds. We still need to continue taking action.
-
But at the Federal, nah.
lmao WHAT? You should start paying attention to the Supreme Court because maybe then you'd understand what an incredibly stupid statement this is, el barto.
-
Oh I do! Don't get me wrong. Those fucks are fucking shit up. I know that. But we're still the majority, and we'll show them.
-
-
-
It's too bad the D's won't put up a candidate like our lives depend on it.
-
A perfect candidate for you is an imperfect candidate for others in the democratic coalition. There is no perfect democratic candidate and we will all have to compromise on as least some levels. Biden has delivered a lot of stellar wins for most democrats and even the side of the party further to the left. Our largest unifying belief right now is in defeating fascism at home. We cannot pursue purity at the expense of progress.
-
Ding ding ding, this is the answer.
ALL of politics is about building consensus and compromise. Every single bit. There will never be a candidate that you agree with on every single issue; that means that you're always going to have to vote strategically, and decide which issues are the most important to you.
As anyone that combs through my post history will not, I'm very, very pro-2A; I oppose almost all restrictions on gun rights, I think that the past-'86 ban of FOPA should be thrown out, and I'd be fine with the Nat'l Firearms Act of 1934 being ruled unconstitutional. On the other hand, I also support religious plurality and freedom--including especially the freedom from religion--reproductive rights, voting rights for everyone, non-discrimination, LGBTQ+ rights, and support the right of cops to eat a sack of dicks. So even though gun rights are very important to me, I'm extremely unlikely to ever vote Republican. Especially since I live in a state where it's very unlikely I'll ever have to worry about losing my 2A rights, but my partner has to worry about losing their access to reproductive healthcare.
-
And I hate guns and would happily amend the second out of the constitution. I'm sure we both have our reasons behind our beliefs and I respect yours, truly (I only bring this up to illustrate our differences btw, not trying to start a spat). I have my own objections to some Dem candidates and policies, certainly. I love you all though, because we are allies in a much more critical endeavor than any wedge issue: the continuation of our freedom and basic democratic norms. I just don't feel that it's hard to compromise this way and it's the clear path to victory, even for the more divisive issues you care about.
-
-
-
When has the party put up a new candidate to replace an incumbent with a term to go?
I'm not sure this was made clear, but THERE IS NO CHOICE 'C'. there's no "none of the above" that works. It's a binary choice, and we can't bargain around it. Vote for Biden or accept all of Trump. Every other choice other than voting for Biden is enabling Trump. Staying home? Trump. Spoiling a ballot? Trump.
That's it.
Yeah, it sucks. We get that. Largely, we agree. He's got faults. He's made mistakes. He's made concessions. Still, it's like this:
Vote for Biden or accept Trump.
-
-
-
Oh no. You misread that. They unanimously refused because of Standing. This is a reaction to the cases they ruled on where it turned out the plaintiffs were entirely theoretical. Kavanaugh laid out exactly the standard under which this group could get Standing and return to SCOTUS.
So this is far from dead. A decision on the merits will likely go as we all expect.
-
So, they'll wait until they have another verifiably fake plaintiff instead of a theoretical one.
-
-